« Jurisdiction and Merits in the FTCA | Main | Universality and the CDC eviction moratorium (Updated) »

Saturday, February 27, 2021

More on the "codgers" . . . and institutional pluralism.

Paul noted, a few days ago, the very interesting and recently published conversation between Profs. Seidman and Tushnet.  The former had an interesting take on Georgetown University Law Center's Catholic character and mission:

"Georgetown Law Center is a nominally Catholic institution and one aspect of the residual Catholicism there is the notion that we’re educating the whole person. Frankly, that gives me the creeps."

Prof. Mark Tushnet's response should also be noted, though:

I would say we might want to think about whether different institutions could assert different kinds of jurisdiction and in this context it’s not irrelevant that Georgetown is an institution affiliated with the Society of Jesus and Harvard is not. It might well be that having a universe of 170 whatever law schools some of which take the care of the whole person seriously, others of which limit their jurisdiction, that might be a good thing.  Call it institutional pluralism or diversity. . . .

"Institutional pluralism."  I like that!

Posted by Rick Garnett on February 27, 2021 at 11:27 AM in Rick Garnett | Permalink

Comments

It is good for there to exist legal educational institutions, communities, that treat their students (and faculty)--those who choose to join and to be so treated--as something other than disembodied, disensouled brains.

Posted by: nonny | Mar 2, 2021 9:47:29 AM

Prof. Seidman's concerns on "educating the whole person" are also worth noting:

"Universities ought not to care about the whole person. They ought not to care about my sex life or my views about religion or how I treat my neighbors. They have a very limited function. They care about education, about the mind, and so I don’t know that it’s necessarily a good thing that universities have athletic facilities"

The students are adults and should be treated as such. There's no need to restrict their liberty, and Prof. Seidman is right to be concerned about that potential problem. However, the conclusion he reaches about athletic facilities is a stretch. I see his point, but realistically an athletic facility does not threaten the freedom or wellbeing of students in any way.

Posted by: Blakely Moore | Feb 28, 2021 10:26:31 PM

Interesting and novel idea I must admit. It is just, that law as dicipline, is too rigid. Too technical. Too dynamic. I really don't know, whether it is a good thing for one lawyer, to follow or get inspiration, from one sole comprehensive source. Surly Scholastic one.

Thanks

Posted by: El roam | Feb 27, 2021 1:08:21 PM

Post a comment